About your Search

20121222
20121230
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
. that became more and more until the publication of "the pentagon papers." that was a gradual growth come a difference, between the media the new york times" and the administration, and that continues until the state. there is an oscillation between the administration and "the times" depending on the administration. that difference opened up cordially there, and it continued to. the skepticism to the vietnam war, and watergate, which is mostly "washington post" storage, increased trade gradually we have what we have today, an adversarial right fox, adversarial left, msnbc, and cnn, which is trying to be "the new york times," when nobody wants to see a non- adversarial. "the times" is a two-section newspaper, a term that "the times" does not like any more. the editor -- when you use in it, they get a little bit squeamish. some of you i should probably it, one of my sources -- took a great deal of reading the, and interviews. "the times" is generous in giving me access, letting the interview them. mostly, i got this through approaching them and asking them, and one led to the other. approa
. by contrast, the international affairs budget is less than one-tenth of the pentagon's. secretary gates has spoken about this and strongly urged the congress to address that imbalance. we have not yet. admiral mullen pointed out, the more diplomacy is cut, the more lives are lost. we have to make certain that we are not penny-wise and pound-foolish when it comes to supporting americas vital overseas interests. adequately funding foreign-policy initiatives is not spending, but investing in our long-term security, and more often or not, it saves far more expensive expenditures in dollars and lives in the conflicts that we fail to see or avoid. we need to invest in america's long-term interest in order to do the job of diplomacy in a dangerous world. this report makes that crystal clear. since 1985, i have had the privilege of making official journeys to one trouble spot or another. i have met a lot of our men and women in the foreign services. we sat and talked about the work they do and the lives that they lead. they spent years learning the languages of the country so they can be on the fro
they go to washington, it is not an act of philanthropic on the pentagon -- and at the plant for be on the pentagon fell apart -- it is not a philanthropic act on the pentagon's part. the united states federal government -- unless europe is dollar rise, unless they do not have dollars to spend purchasing the net exports of those who have surpluses, then they will stop having surplus. this is the surplus recycling mechanism. thus, we have the 20 years of the golden age. a period of immense stability very low inflation. universal growth. we had other problems. the lease from the macroeconomic point of view, it was a golden age. why is that? because the global surplus of recycling mechanism was sustained. why? because the united states stopped having a surplus by the end of the 1960's. how can you recycle surplus if you cannot have it. well, paul volcker -- been named may ring a bell. in 1971, paul volcker was an unknown working for another american. henry kissinger, who you may have heard of. before he became secretary of state. volcker's paper, which are when i read a few year
of the show and they just kind of, we got calls from people from the pentagon and from politicians. both shows were done and conceived without cooperation and without any purported. connection to how they actually run. it was never part of the promises. i've attempted some shows that have not seen the light of day with cooperation of government agencies. i worked for a long time on a show with the f.b.i. and also with nasa, negotiate of which probably not coincidently came to fruition. but these shows "homeland" -- "24" made up it's own organization c.. the u. to avoid it and with "homeland" it was a step towards reality so it does elude to the cia. but -- >> our relationship with the military was interesting because obviously these agencies want to keep arm's length. and once they became fans -- i think it was that simple, they just enjoyed it and felt this is portraying when we did portray a general or soldier, the military became cooperative. so we had a pentagon lie ace son. it got to the point we said we need a couple of f-16s they said sure. it got great. a lot of production value where
, it is not a philanthropic act on the pentagon's part to instruct boeing to build. -- to build in the deficit areas of the u.s. it is pragmatic. the united states federal government -- unless europe is dollarized, unless they do not have dollars to spend purchasing -- unless those who do not have dollars are given dollars to spend purchasing, the net exports of those who have surpluses, then they will stop having surplus. this is the surplus recycling mechanism. thus, we have the 20 years of the golden age. the 1950's and the 1960's. a period of immense stability very low inflation. very low unemployment. universal growth. we had other problems. the lease from the macroeconomic point of view, it was a golden age. why did it end? because the global surplus of recycling mechanism could no longer be sustained. why? because the united states stopped having a surplus by the end of the 1960's. how can you recycle surplus if you cannot have it. -- if you do not have it? enter a young turk in 1971. actually, he was the american, but you know what i mean. well, paul volcker -- that name may ring a bell. in 1971, pau
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)